Francis’ biggest mistake: Probably not what you think

[Skipping the first third, which is more about Zikagate, and which you may read at your convenience at the above link]

At this, let us turn our attention to the million dollar question that no one seems to be asking:

Why is it so very important for the enemies of Our Lord to make us believe, ludicrous though the notion truly is, that an ironclad “rule” has always existed in the Church with respect to contraception and rape, when clearly this isn’t related in the least to the Zika question?

Answer: Because Francis made a big mistake, and not just in contradicting Catholic doctrine – this he has done many times in the past. What he did the other day is something we’ve never seen before:

He betrayed the conciliar cause in a way that is tantamount to a military leader revealing classified information to the enemy.

While flying the friendly skies, Francis cracked the door just enough to give the otherwise duped an unprecedented glimpse into a Vatican gone astray; running the risk of exposing the entire post-conciliar charade for what it truly is, thereby putting his accomplices among the Captains of newchurch in a very difficult position.

How so?

You see, while so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) have long since recognized that the rush to canonize all of the post-conciliar popes is truly nothing more than a calculated attempt to give the appearance of Catholicity to the Second Vatican Council and its various departures from tradition, as if it bears little responsibility for the deterioration of the Church’s visible structures that followed, the neo-conservative “Santo Subito” crowd (which includes any number of genuinely naïve and ill-formed bishops and priests) have simply gone along with the program.

As it concerns the cause of Paul VI, however, many of them have admitted to feeling a bit uneasy, on which note – and this is very important:

Rather than confront the bitter reality of the pending canonization of a uniquely terrible pope, most have chosen to take refuge in the idea that Montini “earned” his place among the canonized by virtue of his “heroic” defense of the truth concerning contraception.

Until now, this approach has sufficed to placate such persons in their avoidance of the obvious, but thanks to Francis’ big mistake, those days may very well be numbered.

This is a far bigger problem for the revolutionaries in Rome than one might immediately realize.

I have little doubt (and neither should you) that the elevation of Paul VI to the ranks of the canonized has been a strategic goal of revolutionaries from the very moment he saddled the Church with the Novus Ordo Missae.

Insofar as the post-conciliar canonization sweepstakes are concerned, this has always been the Grand Prize; the one truly ordered toward placing the new Mass above all scrutiny even as it masterfully leads souls astray without their even knowing it.

The carefully laid plan was going oh so well until Francis blurted out a closely guarded secret the other day. (I will explain what that secret is in just a moment, as if it’s not already obvious).

With patience and forethought the Masonic masterminds of the takeover of Rome strategized to beatify John XXIII and Pius IX together on the same day, in the hope that doing so would provide the illusion of “continuity” between the pope of the Council and the pope of the Syllabus, at least in the minds of the under-nourished.

Mission accomplished!

It worked so well in fact that “continuity” would later become the centerpiece of an entire pontificate, and even go on to serve as the mantra of the misled even after his departure.

When the time arrived to raise John Paul II to the altars, he was so popular that no such shenanigans as paying tribute to the dinosaurs of the pre-conciliar age would be necessary.

From there, his canonization raised the eyebrows of but a relative few; namely, Neo-Pelagians like us.

One can easily imagine that Benedict XVI, the conflicted liturgist, may very well have harbored some apprehension with respect to taking the next step; namely, that of beatifying Montini – the man who oversaw the destruction of the Roman rite. That, however, is just speculation.

What we do know is that the beatification of Paul VI was accomplished at the hands of Pope Francis with pushback largely confined to the “traditionalist” fringe.

On this note, one does well to recall how the beatification was spun in the months leading up to the event:

The lid that effectively covered the ecclesial and liturgical disasters that came to define the Montini pontificate was constructed of just one thing – his stance on birth control, and so it was that the skids were greased and the stage was set for his canonization at long last.

That is, until the other day.

You see, Francis let a roaring lion out of the bag when he said, “Paul VI – the great! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of violence.” [A more accurate rendering of the Italian text.]

Rest assured, my friends, this was not just some bumbling old man letting on that he believes a silly rumor.

No, this was the man who occupies the highest office in Rome making it known that he and those who likewise hold positions of authority in the Vatican – including in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints – are convinced beyond any doubt that Paul VI really did approve of oral contraception for nuns who felt threatened with rape.

It is every bit as likely that they have rock solid, irrefutable proof that this is the case.

The reason we haven’t heard a peep about this debacle for several decades is because it was, until the other day, a closely guarded secret.

And why so guarded?

Because its revelation would threaten to throw a gigantic monkey wrench into the cause of Paul VI, at the very least from a public relations standpoint, and more importantly, it might threaten to disrupt the plan of enshrining among the Communion of Saints the bastard rite that he foist upon the children of the Church.

Oh, well… you know what they say about the best laid plans.

Francis – the pope who simply cannot resist the allure of a live microphone – spilled the beans, and in so doing he gave millions of otherwise mind-numb Catholics a very good reason to rethink the true motives behind the “canonizations” of John Paul II, John XXIII, and any number of lower profile individuals.

It also gives Catholics the world over every reason to ask:

What else are they hiding and why? Are they also sitting on proof of Montini’s alleged homosexuality? If they’ve been hiding this for so long, why should I trust that they’re not still hiding parts of the Third Secret of Fatima? Could it be that glorifying at all costs the Council, the new Mass, and the new ecumenical church, etc. really does lie at the heart of these matters and others?

To say that Francis opened a can of worms … no, make that a pit full of serpents, is an understatement.

At present, the best they can do is pretend that it has always been the case that the Church considers contraception morally permissible in anticipation of a violent act that has yet to occur and may never occur.

The very idea is entirely ludicrous to be sure, but that’s all they got, folks.

Keep a close eye on just how vigorously this ridiculous proposition is put forth over the next few days and weeks – on the one hand by ignorant pawns, on the other, by those directly involved in the deception.

10 comments on “Francis’ biggest mistake: Probably not what you think”

What the neo-Catholics do not believe is that Almighty God is the Author of Life and human beings are only agents in the Divine Plan. They take upon themselves divine prerogatives and cannot see the forest for the trees they have planted. In a word they are gods unto themselves.

Psalm 12, Douay Rheims. Unless you can suggest a better one. This man Jorge Bergoglio, I can’t decide if he’s just plain stupid, in the sense of sloppy, or he’s a master at manipulation. I shudder thinking he does these things purposefully.

[1] Unto the end, a psalm for David. How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me unto the end? how long dost thou turn away thy face from me? [2] How long shall I take counsels in my soul, sorrow in my heart all the day? [3] How long shall my enemy be exalted over me? [4] Consider, and hear me, O Lord my God. Enlighten my eyes that I never sleep in death: [5] Lest at any time my enemy say: I have prevailed against him. They that trouble me will rejoice when I am moved:

[6] But I have trusted in thy mercy. My heart shall rejoice in thy salvation: I will sing to the Lord, who giveth me good things: yea I will sing to the name of the Lord the most high.

Thanks Tom. This afforded me a good time to read the Psalms and pray. Such a shame though that the object– maybe ‘abject’ is more like it– of derision is the Holy Father. I have to keep reminding myself that he is the Holy Father. I had a talk after Mass today with an older gentleman who told me quite bluntly to think it through. There’s no way out of vedesacantism. The gates of hell would have to prevail.

Psalm 11 proved a good prayer:

Salvum me fac. The prophet calls for God’s help against the wicked.

[1] Unto the end; for the octave, a psalm for David. [2] Save me, O Lord, for there is now no saint: truths are decayed from among the children of men. [3] They have spoken vain things every one to his neighbour: with deceitful lips, and with a double heart have they spoken. [4] May the Lord destroy all deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things. [5] Who have said: We will magnify our tongue; our lips are our own; who is Lord over us?

[6] By reason of the misery of the needy, and the groans of the poor, now will I arise, saith the Lord. I win set him in safety; I will deal confidently in his regard. [7] The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried by the fire, purged from the earth refined seven times. [8] Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us: and keep us from this generation for ever. [9] The wicked walk round about: according to thy highness, thou hast multiplied the children of men.

I wouldn’t want either one sitting on the Throne of Peter. Overall there really isn’t much difference between the two.
The only difference IMO is that Bergoglio is a commie, or at least pro-commie, where JPII spoke out against communism and socialism.
JPII defending the family, marriage and defended the unborn more than Jorge.
Everything else though, ecumenism, liturgically etc they’re both staunch modernists.

Most of the modern canonizations are mostly for political reasons or to suit the crowds. I refer to the pre-conciliar saints for prayers because there was more scrutiny in preparing for those canonizations. There was a devil’s advocate and three miracles plus most waited for 100 years before canonizing anyone. If you do it too soon, scandals could come up and many people would no longer believe in the saints of modern times.